I had quite the discussion with Chris the other day via twitter about pros and cons of Vancouver 2010. He had some great points.
The security of the Olympics leaves much to be desired. There's been some free speech issues. There has been a huge increase in the amount of security present in Vancouver. Both of these are valid and important concerns, but I think that it is being blown out of proportion.
I'll admit that I'm far from Vancouver right now, so I can only rely on the media outlets available to me, but from where I'm sitting, it looks like the increase of security is temporary, although the cameras are there to stay. Having less security at the games may have been a bad idea; at a World Event like the Olympics, it is difficult to err on the side of lax security. There are thousands of people from all over the world, some from countries at war; each person should be able to feel secure. And yes, the security may come at the expense of some of the freedoms of people who are at Olympic Events, but there is a simple solution - if you value your freedoms opt out of going.
We opt out of freedoms (or opt out of opting out) all the time. I went to a screening of So You Think You Can Dance Canada (feel free to judge, I don't care) and there were tons of freedoms that I gave up to enter. I wasn't allowed to wear jeans and a crappy t-shirt. I wasn't allowed to yell obscenities. I wasn't allowed to enter without a shirt. I'm allowed to do all those things - I have the rights to - but i gave them up to partake in something.
There is no theoretical difference between that and the Olympics in Vancouver. The Olympics is a spectacle that people opt into going to, and when you opt into going, then you voluntarily give up those rights. It's as easy as that.
Well, sort of. The problem lies in the fact that the scope of the Olympics is so much larger than the scope of a live studio audience television show. There are so many "gray" areas that may be Olympic locations or may not be. A significant portion of downtown Vancouver seems to qualify as an Olympic Venue, even though there aren't Olympic events scheduled there. Those areas are the areas of most concern, because the people who live there actually cannot opt out of going to events; you are, in effect, not giving those people the ability to opt out of going.
So there's a problem there. But here's a bigger problem: if the Olympics went to any other country in the world, would that country have done things better or would they have done things worse?
The Olympics are going to happen. No matter what - they make too much money to not happen. And Canada is a rich country. Canada is a great country (in my opinion, the greatest). I think that we handle these pressures better than other countries do, and not hosting the games would be saying "We don't care about the problem".
We do care about the problems, and we don't stop people from speaking up about them. And that's one of the reasons why not being allowed to have a sign up that says that the Olympics suck when you're in downtown Vancouver doesn't bother me as much as it bothers other people. We're not stifling what you have to say; we're just asking you to say it elsewhere.
By Christopher Parsons February 22, 2010 - 4:13 pm
I think that the key difference between ‘So you think you can dance’ and ‘the olympics’ is that in the former you were asked to temporarily give up certain things to enter a private venue. In the latter, you’re seeing a suspension of constitutional rights fo free speech, a reversion of law in Vancouver, and a BILLION DOLLARS in securitization.
The camera’s aren’t (in all likelihood) going away. The sonic weapon that the VPD bought isn’t getting sent back to the manufacturer. The massive RCMP surveillance database that has been set up isn’t going to be deleted. The massive influx of body scanner in Vancouver that were justified by ‘Olympic threat + underwear bomber’ aren’t going away.
This ‘event’ has allowed law enforcement and intelligence officials to harass Canadian activists, who’s sole ‘danger’ was that they would disrupt the Olympics by protesting in a free and democratic nation. Intelligence and law enforcement have harvested activist information – students have been monitored, their schedules somehow acquired, and even those who AREN’T involved in protest have been ‘questioned’ because of their affiliations. Canadian activists are deemed the greatest threat to the Olympics – for this reason, we’re blowing a BILLION DOLLARS, on people who just want to protest?
This creates a chilling environment, and it’s unbecoming of what is supposed to be a proud country with a strong constitutional right to speech and assembly. THOSE are the grounds for the most righteous indignation against the games, as far as I’m concerned: I give two shits about ‘the Olympics will happen someone, so why not here’ – I *do* care when *my* constitutional rights are sacrificed for a *party* when *I* wasn’t given a vote.
The bigger problem IS NOT ‘the Olympics would have gone to any other country’ – it’s that mine, and your, constitutional rights are being infringed upon so that some athletes can get together and ski/skate/etc. That’s insane – rights are INCREDIBLY hard to attain, and a mere sporting event is NO REASON to give up what are so hard to attain. If the event comes at a loss of rights, then send the rights to Sudan, for all I care. This is definitely a case where ‘my rights come first’, and Canada should be demonstrating to the world the power of the rule of law, instead of watering it down to accomodate a SPORTING EVENT.
As for ‘we don’t stop people from speaking up’, well, I propose that when people are repeatedly harassed by local police, plainclothed RCMP, and people who ‘just work for public safety’ (i.e. CSIS) regularly come to your door because you’re voicing anti-olympic messages, that an environment of chilling speech is being created. There is a suspicion that comes from speaking up, and the RCMP is unwilling to explain who, exactly, they’re surveyed, whether they will (again) act as agent provocateurs, how much money they’ve spent, what data is being collected, or anything else. None of this is expected to be available via access to information requests, given the need for ‘confidentiality’ of policing matters. Again, as a citizen in a democratic country, where I expect the authorities to be publicly accountable, this is absolutely wrong.
Finally, channelling WHERE you can talk is important: Vancouver is a major Canadian city, and you’re being told ‘go where no one can read or hear what you’re doing, and then you can say/show it.’ I guess that’s fine – as all marketers know, location is nothing….
By aphoenix February 22, 2010 - 7:46 pm
First, you have a skewed sense of what is going on. Have you had people regularly coming to your door because of your anti-olympic messages? No, you haven’t. And neither have 99% of the people who have voiced anti-olympic sentiment. But if you’re affiliated with places like No2010, you do have people coming to check you out. Because you’re affiliated with arsonists, vandals and other potentially violent criminals. And if you go to an Olympic site with a sign protesting, you get removed from the games. It’s not a hard equation to figure out – go somewhere else with the damn sign. Nobody is saying don’t protest. They’re saying don’t protest where you are wasting sponsor’s money. They don’t want to see it on TV. The reasons here are not different from So You Think You Can Dance: it’s bad copy to see protesters at events, and the sponsors don’t want to see it.
Second, I think we’re never going to agree about individual rights. They are important, but what about the rights of the community to have safety? I agree that we need to scrutinize our security forces to make sure that they are doing the jobs that need doing, but I don’t think that having cameras in public locations is necessarily wrong. I don’t think that police officers monitoring sites like No2010 and then arresting the people associated (who have committed violent crimes) is a bad thing. And I think that the security forces are there to encourage people to give up those individual rights only at the events that are specified. This isn’t any different from what we already have, but the scale is different.
Third, I don’t think of this as a “mere” event, and the fact that you do means we aren’t going to get on the same page on this. I think sports are of utmost importance in life. They’re on the same level as Arts, Music and Good Food. They are some of the things that I live for and they’re some of the things that many people live for. A life without sport is not a life I am interested in living. I’m wondering if I can word this in a way so that you understand how integral this is to the existence of not just me, but probably billions of people around the world. If you don’t get it, you don’t get it, but there’s got to be something that you are passionate about; many people feel that way about this event.
Last point: I don’t think people necessarily have the right to go to events and ruin them for everyone else. Why is my right to enjoy these events less important than your right to speak at Olympic events?